[MR] RE: Triton Speaks on the GoA

[david wendelken]

>Just like a Major in the army isn't also a Captain and a >Lietenant, but
>just a Major.
>...
>So does this mean that for those people who have
>already received Peerages and the like and just
>recently received Court Baronys and like, these new
>awards not only don't "count", they shouldn't have
>happened?
>...
>Yes it does and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
>
>Under the light of this evidence, I withdraw from my previous >position and instruct the Clerk of Precedence to apply this >ruling to these cases.  If any have questions, please contact >me directly.

>Batcok, Triton

My Lord,

The ruling may well be SCA Heraldic policy, but it is not in accordance with period usage, as I understand it.  A great lord, let's say a King or Duke, might gain title to another fief.  Said lord could be addressed by that fief's title, and, if they thought the fief important enough to warrant it, would style themselves with all their names, including the recently acquired ones.

Thus, I see no reason someone could not be given a baronetcy after they were made, say, a duke.  (That would, of course, have no bearing upon whether they got an additional award, grant, or patent of arms.)  They would still have just one of those.

Whenever we have these decisions to make, I prefer to make ones that include all of these criteria in generous measure:

a) Period precedent,
b) Makes logical sense,
c) Workable given our amateur, part-time, volunteer organization,
d) Generates more fun.

In the absence of workable solutions that encompass all four criteria, I prefer to evaluate starting with the "most fun" option, and stop when I find a workable solution.

To wit, giving and receiving awards is fun, has period precedence, makes logical sense (in motivational terms), and requires little long-term effort to keep track of.

Overly complicated precedence rules are not fun to administer, appear to interfere with the fun of giving and recieving awards, require extra volunteer labor to "verify" whether the award can be received or not, and therefore makes little logical sense (in motivational terms or efficient usage of scarce volunteer resources).

Thus, by my judgement criteria, recieving extra awards should be allowed.

The following statement should, **in no way**, be construed to be an attack upon the fine work that our heralds do, or upon their character.  It relates solely to the issue at hand:

This seems to be a clear case of putting the cart before the horse.  Heralds exist to keep track of awards, awards do not exist because heralds approve of them.


Andras Salamandra